Has star trek changed

Okay, let's cut the pretentious talk about Roddenberry's vision. You know what Roddenberry really saw Star Trek as? A source of money. That's all it was to him. In fact, Zephram Cochrane in First Contact really is an in-universe Roddenberry figure. Revered by many as a man of vision when in fact all he wanted was enough money to retire to a nice island with amazing women.

Just because something has action and adventure doesn't make it incompatible with "Roddenberry Trek." And the truth of the matter is that Roddenberry is not God. Deal with it.

Yeah, Roddenberry was every bit as much of a money grubber as Abrams is. Note to purists, I'm NOT saying he was as clearly outright dumb as Abrams is, but money was the primary motivational factor throughout his involvement. The only thing that seperates them is that Gene Roddenberry had a genuine interest in science-fiction so we got something like The Motion Picture, whereas I honestly don't think Abrams understands what science-fiction is beyond "an action film with some aliens in it".

It's a bad idea to elevate one man and his ideas. My Star Trek heroes are Michael Piller, Ira Stephen Behr and Gene Coon. I see Roddenberry as a good TV producer, if somewhat sleazy, corrupt and lazy. Star Trek was and always has been a collaborate process. Even JJ Abrams gets way too much credit from people who don't know he hasn't written either Trek film he's made.

If you paid attention to the post, you'd see I was actually defending Abrams and saying he's no greedier than Roddenberry was.

I as just trying to get purists off my case by making it clear I still think Roddenberry was a smart guy, which I'm not remotely convinced Abrams is from interviews. He seems confused in every press interview I've seen him in, I almost feel sorry for him.

Calling Abrams dumb doesn't make any sense to me. Michael Bay makes extraordinarily dumb movies, for instance, but I'm sure he's at least of average intelligence.

Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?

Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek 2009, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?

Click to expand...

The only one of those I'd consider to be true science-fiction would be the time travel episodes of Lost and he had zero influence on them. They were conceived of/written by Damon Lindelof and Calrton Cuse

He is from the Spielberg/Lucas school of thought regarding the genre which is PERFECT for Star Wars Episode VII but entirely wrong for Star Trek. My two pence.

If you paid attention to the post, you'd see I was actually defending Abrams and saying he's no greedier than Roddenberry was.

I as just trying to get purists off my case by making it clear I still think Roddenberry was a smart guy, which I'm not remotely convinced Abrams is from interviews. He seems confused in every press interview I've seen him in, I almost feel sorry for him.

Click to expand...

Read your own post. You called Abrams dumb. Outright dumb. Wondering when I can read a script from you as good as Regarding Henry - which dumb Abrams wrote.

And you are mistaking excitability for confusion. You may not like his style of entertainment, but to say the man is not intelligent as successful as he is in the industry (because Disney CLEARLY doesn't know what they are doing) is just, well, dumb.

And he is also a business owner. A little somewhat successful production company called Bad Robot. Maybe you have heard of it.

I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?

Click to expand...

No.

But let's be honest, Gene adjusted his "vision" according to whatever best stuffed his pockets with cash and his couch with starlets.

Click to expand...

This.

I have much love and respect for Gene Roddenberry, and the work he did, but things change, and there's no such thing as a "purist" because no series will ever be "pure" to everyone, not even TOS, which would occasionally contradict itself and it's own stated goals. People who claim to be "purists" are merely people who hate any kind of change whatsoever, and hold to their favorite series like a warm, fuzzy blanket. Nothing more.

I think the best explanation for Gene Roddenberry's vision was echoed by James Cromwell's Zephram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact, who said, "You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will."

Gene had a vision, but it was formed much later on, after he had convinced himself that he was doing something for the greater good of humanity.

The only one of those I'd consider to be true science-fiction would be the time travel episodes of Lost and he had zero influence on them. They were conceived of/written by Damon Lindelof and Calrton Cuse

He is from the Spielberg/Lucas school of thought regarding the genre which is PERFECT for Star Wars Episode VII but entirely wrong for Star Trek. My two pence.

Click to expand...

I dunno, man, once we get into qualifiers like 'true' then I don't think you're really saying anything beyond that you're not fond of his work.

I am thoroughly enjoying this BBS. Ii certainly don't agree with everyone's ideas of what JJ brings to the Star Trek universe (what fun would that be!) but I think the thing that is overlooked is that we are talking about Star Trek! Because after Insurrection and a failed attempt at TV with Enterprise it was dead. I like JJ Abrams. Most everything he was involved in (with the exception of Undercovers) had at least a passing interest to me. Fringe is in my top 5 favorite TV of all time as is Lost. So we have our favorite characters in a new incarnation and I, for one, am thrilled. These TOS characters were a huge part of my childhood. To have them back is surreal and so much fun.

I loved Regarding Henry and I believe JJ w co-wrote the pilot episode of Lost, so I like his writing, directing and production style. That being said, I am more of a fan of Bad Robot and the talent involved in the company. It would be a dream to work in a creative environment like that. And I think the next Treks will be turned over to Bob Orci and Lindelof and other maybe new, unearthed talent at Bad Robot. I think it is in great hands and will end up being done by huge fans of the Trek Universe (as Orci is) while JJ works with Star Wars indefinitely. That is absolutely fine by me. I like the changes, but a consistent voice from here on out (at least for another movie or 2) would be preferred.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not this or that is in line with "Gene's vision" is akin to wondering if Colonel Sanders 'would have approved' of the Zinger Tower or the Boneless Banquet.

I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?

Click to expand...

A) We have just such a hangout, it's this forum and you seem quite fond of hanging out here.

B) My view is that Star Trek isn't a religion with Gene Roddenberry as Moses. Neither we as fans nor Abrams nor anyone else as creators are beholden to "Gene's vision" in any way. As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not this or that is in line with "Gene's vision" is akin to wondering if Colonel Sanders 'would have approved' of the Zinger Tower or the Boneless Banquet. No-one cares if he would or not.

Likewise, Roddenberry's been dead for over twenty years. More Star Trek has been made without his involvement than with it. His 'vision' is sweet and all, but it's restrictive of the kind of stories you can tell and the kind of characters you can tell them about. There's just no real reason to keep mindlessly deferring to it, in my view.

I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?

Click to expand...

No.

But let's be honest, Gene adjusted his "vision" according to whatever best stuffed his pockets with cash and his couch with starlets.

Click to expand...

So basically, to live Gene's vision is to be a hedonist. Better than religion, I'd say.

Roddenberry wanted to create a TV show in the 1960s that would sell. Period. I will say that to his credit, he did want it to be at least a moderately intelligent and moderately progressive show. But it wasn't the only intelligent or progressive show on TV in the 1960s. Further, most of its staying power over time hasn't come from one "vision," but from its versatile format. Unlike "Gunsmoke" which was always a western stuck in a time and place, Trek could be many things.

But Gene's "vision" and crap like that came later. It's revisionist history. It's all part of the "cult" of Trek and the self-importance it used to market itself. We've all read that stuff at some time during our fandom. Some dismiss it. Some are absorbed.

The only thing that seperates them is that Gene Roddenberry had a genuine interest in science-fiction so we got something like The Motion Picture, whereas I honestly don't think Abrams understands what science-fiction is beyond "an action film with some aliens in it".

Click to expand...

Regarding this, you really should go back and study the history of TMP. Virtually everything Roddenberry pitched for the movie was viewed as pretty much incoherent. It wasn't until more of what Foster, Livingston, et al. wrote and started to show in the script that TMP got greenlit.

Roddenberry did have a genuine interest in sci-fi, but I also think Abrams does as well. And if he hits something he doesn't know, he's smart enough to have surrounded himself with folks who do know.

Much like Roddenberry did when starting TOS, he was smart enough to bring in Coon, Fontana and so on.

What would you say to the highly-respected science fiction people who viewed TOS in 1966 as an adventure show with some aliens in it? I can't recall the names now, but that was the general idea from some science fiction people at the time.

Back to topic, we have people mourning the changing of Star Trek, who are probably the same people who would slam the Abrams movies for revisiting the TOS characters and not going into the 25th or 3025th Century and changing into something more "modern".

But Gene's "vision" and crap like that came later. It's revisionist history. It's all part of the "cult" of Trek and the self-importance it used to market itself. We've all read that stuff at some time during our fandom. Some dismiss it. Some are absorbed.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Don't want to bloat the thread too much, but the talk ITT gave me an idea:

PERFECTION'S GERM
Star Trek, Season Four, Episode One

Captain’s log, Stardate 5941.5. We’re in orbit around Tre’knir VII, an M-Class planet that has been emanating some unusual readings of late. Starfleet has ordered us to investigate.

Spock reports signs of intelligent life, an agrarian community centred in one small part of the planet, underneath an incredibly large piece of vegetation which Spock classifies as ‘tree-like’. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Ensign Cadaver beam down. Scott is in command on the bridge.

The four arrive on the outskirts of the settlement. It’s a farming community which appears idyllic. Ensign Cadaver trips on a pebble and breaks his neck, dying instantly. McCoy manages to revive him. McCoy remarks that the peaceful, rural setting seems ideal to him as a simple country doctor. Spock makes an arch remark about disease rates. McCoy reacts in irascible frustration. Kirk rolls his eyes as LOUD, INCREDIBLY OBTRUSIVE WOODWIND INSTRUMENTS play, in case a deaf guy on the other side of the galaxy doesn’t realise the scene is played for laughs.

Spock’s tricorder shows further unusual readings which Spock is presently unable to explain. In the distance they can see the massive trunk of the incredibly large tree. They head towards it, after Ensign Cadaver is killed by an allergic reaction to the local crops. McCoy manages to revive him.

They encounter a native, who is puzzled by their strange appearance and Spock’s ears in particular. Ensign Cadaver challenges him and is killed by the native’s spear. While McCoy revives the ensign, Kirk speaks with the native, inquiring about their way of life. The native, apparently well practiced in summarising the existence of his entire community, explains that they are Tre'kkians, and live in the gentle shade of ‘The Great Tree, where the Groddenberries watch over all’. He explains that the Groddenberries are the fruit of The Great Tree, and that the natives rely on the “Viz’hen” of the Groddenberries to achieve what he calls ‘Dre-mmah’. Spock tentatively translate ‘Dre-mmah’ as ‘Nirvana’.

Ensign Cadaver notices a rustling in the vegetation around them and reaches for his phaser, then drops dead with an arrow sticking out of his chest – our heroes are suddenly surrounded. McCoy revives the ensign. The native explains that the four must appear before the Council of Elders to be judged. If the Council decides that they do not meet with the Groddenberries’ approval, they will be executed.

Cut to our heroes confined in a crude cell carved into the trunk of the Great Tree. McCoy and Kirk exchange simplistic, sentimental musings on the idyllic agrarian life led by the Tre'kkians. Ensign Cadaver tries to break through the bamboo-like bars of the cell and is killed by a sliver of the stuff. As McCoy revives him, Spock announces that he has completed his tricorder analysis. The soil in the area surrounding the Great Tree is rapidly becoming infertile. Soon, perhaps within a decade, the Trekkians will be unable to farm there at all. In order to survive, the Tre'kkians will need to leave the shade of the Great Tree. MORE INCREDIBLY OBTRUSIVE MUSIC PLAYS as we see Kirk's HORRIFIED YET WORDLESS REACTION and we're out for the ad-break.

Coming back from the break, our heroes are facing the Council of Elders, four middle-aged men and one young, attractive, scantily-clad woman. All of them wear masks with subtle variations, the woman's being the least obstructive, so we can see that she is, indeed, very attractive.

Unaccountably, the trial follows the popularly-understood form of criminal trials in the US of the twentieth-century. Our four are charged with various transgressions of the Viz'hen of the Groddenberries and told they will be executed if found guilty. Ensign Cadaver freaks out and is killed by the guards. McCoy is unable to revive him, so we know the shit's hit the fan now.

Kirk embarks on a lengthy, scenery-chewing speech in which he extols the virtues of change and decries the vices of stagnation, exhorting the Tre'kkians to abandon the Great Tree. The Elders are outraged and say that they can never stray from the Viz'hen of the Groddenberries – it's all they know! Kirk condemns himself from his own mouth with this blasphemous talk! Kirk embarks on a shorter, yet still more intense monologue, telling the Tre'kkians that they can find a new Viz'hen elsewhere, far from the Great Tree and away from the watchful gaze of the Groddenberries. Perhaps, he tells them, they can even find a new kind of Dre-mmah.

Finally the elders are convinced and all is forgiven. The Tre'kkians begin to plan their migration away from the Great Tree. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam back up to the Enterprise without making any arrangements for Ensign Cadaver's mutilated corpse to be returned to them. So it goes.

Back on the bridge, after completing his log entry, Kirk speaks with Spock about their experience. Spock remarks that the Tre'kkians were not unlike ancient humans in their determination to stick to old ways no matter what the cost. Kirk smirks and makes more simplistic, sentimental remarks about how appealing the agrarian lifestyle of the Tre'kkians seemed to him. Spock raises his eyebrow. FIVE TO EIGHT SECONDS OF FORCED GROUP LAUGHTER AT THE DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION and ROLL CREDITS

Spock makes an arch remark about disease rates. McCoy reacts in irascible frustration. Kirk rolls his eyes as LOUD, INCREDIBLY OBTRUSIVE WOODWIND INSTRUMENTS play, in case a deaf guy on the other side of the galaxy doesn’t realise the scene is played for laughs.

I don't mind where it's been going, but would love for the next one to NOT be focused so much on having a big villian to overcome. Would like to see a little more science in my science fiction, and have story more around Enterprise versus a mystery, phenomenon, or ancient race type situation.

I think the last time we got a Trek movie without a big villian was ST:IV, with the Probe being closer to a force of nature rather than something to fight.

I knew, fewer phasers pew-pewing and capital ships in dogfights, but would be a nice change of pace. Of all our favorite Trek episodes, how many really had a big villian the crew was fighting?